Communion does matter.The Covenant is not the same as Communion.

The Archbishop of Canterbury released his Advent Letter today and in it he extols the wonderful work he and others are doing in the Anglican Communion. (It is a public letter but it directed to the Primates and Moderators of the Anglican Communion.) He talks about the Anglican Communion as "a gift" and is dismayed that some see the Anglican Communion as "a problem." He insists that the Anglican Communion needs the Anglican Covenant now more than ever.

ACNS:

(Dr. Williams writes:) "This is why the Communion matters – why it matters for a bishop in Jerusalem facing the withdrawal of a residency permit...a congregation in Nigeria facing more interreligious violence, an island in the Pacific facing inundation because of climate change, an urban community in Britain wondering how to respond to rising social disorder as poverty and unemployment increase. The Communion is a gift not a problem to all such people and many more. Only in such a mutually supportive family, glorifying and praising God in Christ together, can we truly make known the one Christ."

The Archbishop's letter acknowledged the "numerous tensions" in the Communion, but cautioned Communion members never to say "I have no need of you" to anyone seeking to serve Jesus Christ. He also used the letter to appeal for "more careful and dispassionate discussion" on such issues as the powers of Primates' Meetings as well calling for "a sustained willingness on the part of all Provinces to understand the different ways in which each local part of the Anglican family organizes its life."

Dr Williams also commended the Anglican Communion Covenant "as strongly as I can" stressing that it would neither change the structure of the Communion nor give "some sort of absolute power of ‘excommunication’ to some undemocratic or unrepresentative body."

"It outlines a procedure, such as we urgently need, for attempting reconciliation and for indicating the sorts of consequences that might result from a failure to be fully reconciled," he said. "It alters no Province’s constitution, as it has no canonical force independent of the life of the Provinces. It does not create some unaccountable and remote new authority but seeks to identify a representative group that might exercise a crucial advisory function."

He said the fact that the moratoria were being "increasingly ignored" was deepening mistrust "which is bad for our mission together as Anglicans, and alongside other Christians as well. The question remains: if the moratoria are ignored and the Covenant suspected, what are the means by which we maintain some theological coherence as a Communion and some personal respect and understanding as a fellowship of people seeking to serve Christ?"

The Archbishop is right in telling us that Communion is important. It is essential that Anglicans around the world work together on these and other important questions. We need to do more to encourage common mission and the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that we all share.

Communion is a gift. The problem is not the Communion. The problem is the Covenant.

To make the argument, Dr. Williams begs the question: since he did all the visits and all these events happened without the Covenant in place, then is it possible to be a Communion without the Covenant? Would these connections cease if the Covenant were to not pass? Would Anglicans stop working together or would our voice be diluted in any way without the Covenant in place?

Put another way, would the voice of Anglicanism be any stronger in Zimbabwe and would it influence Mugabe any more if they had the Covenant in their back pockets? Would having the Covenant stop Polynesian islands from being any more submerged and would the urban parish be any more relevant to it's neighborhood with a fully empowered Anglican Covenant?

Once more he talks about how we must not focus on the things that divide us, while extolling a document that defines itself in terms of division, rather than reconciliation. He says we need this to make room for everyone. Dr. Williams asks for an alternative to the mechanisms outlined in Part IV. He says that no one has offered an alternative. While this point is in itself debatable, allow me instead to make a my own humble suggestion:

Instead of spending time (as Section Four posits) on throwing each other out when we disagree, how about building a communion that encourages dialogue and reconciliation?

Instead of focusing on eliminating conflict by making sure that no innovation can happen without the approval of the most conservative member of the Anglican Communion, how about creating a structure and processes that encourage members of Churches who see the implications of the Gospel differently to come together, listen to one another, pray together, share experiences of mission together, and break Eucharistic bread together?

The Covenant diminishes the Communion because it assumes that Communion only happens when we agree. The truth is that Communion is happening because we share Christ. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit that is made possible by death and resurrection of Christ. Communion is because we share the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptism. A Covenant that does not help us do the hard work of living that out--that helps us pray together--despite our disagreements is not a Covenant worth having.

The Covenant certainly cannot exist without the Anglican Communion, but can the Anglican Communion exist without the Covenant? The answer is that it already does.

The Slee memo and the Feast of St. Augustine of Canterbury

Yesterday, Andrew Brown wrote a report in Guardian describing a memo from the late Dean of Southwark Cathedral, the Very Rev Colin Slee, in which Slee describes the machinations of the House of Bishops in the Church of England over the question of whether a gay man can be elevated to the Episcopate.

It is not a pretty picture. We see the Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who can be given to great kindness, as well as the Archbishop of York, brow-beating, intimidating and threatening other members of the nominating committee who disagreed with him. We see Williams' throw a friend, the Very Rev. Jeffrey John, under the bus--not once but multiple times. (Even though Williams' claims to have "no problem" with celibate gay men being bishops.) We hear how England's Equality Law is manipulated and parsed for the state church of England. We see how Episcopal appointments happen in back rooms and in secret. (Which makes me appreciate our sometimes messy electoral system with the checks and balance of Standing Committees and/or General Convention.)

It appears that Williams and Sentamu will apply the same technique to the ordination of women to the Episcopate. They plan to ignore the General Synod and continue Flying Bishops after female bishops are regularized, ensuring at once the continuance of division and the demeaning of women clergy.

Let's assume for just a moment that the motivation for this behavior is a passion to hold the church together. Let's assume that this is done to allow those who don't agree with the ordination of gays or the blessing of same sex unions (or the ordination of women) room to stay in Communion. The way to do that is not to give into bullying, neither is it to bully those with whom you disagree.

Over the last decade, we have seen Williams' approach to this whole crisis. We have seen that it has made everything worse by rewarding bad behavior and consistently promoting a legalistic solution to a pastoral problem.

Every time he has given in to the folks most angry at "these issues" they have not only demanded more, they have participated less. At the end of the memo, Slee wrote the Archbishop about the Jeffrey John fiasco in 2003: "I still believe that had you stood your ground at the time, all that has followed would have been a short-lived blip instead of a deeper and deeper morass."

He has ignored the power dynamics--and the reality that the division in this country was funded by outside right-wing political groups--as so much "conspiracy theory" and still has given in to them. He has rarely refused a chance to insult or ignore the Episcopal Church.

I used to think that those who sowed division counted on Williams' good intentions to be used against him. I used to think that he "understood" the obscure levers of power in Lambeth and was really working for a good outcome, but in secret. But no more. What may have started as a failure of nerve has now become the ground he chooses to make his stand.

This memo demonstrates that the task of preserving the institution is not the same thing as preserving unity. He is choosing institutional stability over the hard work of Communion every time; and, sadly, it only makes the problem worse.

I don't understand how it is that a smart guy like Rowan apparently can't grasp that Communion is neither the same as conformity nor dependent upon agreement. Christ's promise that we all will be one has in fact been accomplished--on the Cross, in the resurrection and in the gift of the Holy Spirit. Our communion is built on common role the baptized share as disciples of Jesus Christ. The fact that we follow Christ and carry out His mission even when we disagree, that we share in His body and blood even as we differ, is the real sign of our unity.

(Lesley's blog talks about this, too.)

Today I found this reflection by Lowell Grisham, on the feast of Augustine of Canterbury (which is today), which describes well--and in thoroughly Biblical terms--what it really means to be in Communion and how the earliest Church handled clashes over apparently life-or-death theological and pastoral issues.

On the day we hear about the ugliness inside Lambeth, this comes as a useful corrective:

Paul wrote to a mixed community of Christians who came from different backgrounds and who had strongly held opinions. The major conflict in Paul's churches was between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Jewish Christians observed the sabbath and the kosher laws of their tradition and of the Hebrew scriptures. For Gentile Christians, every day was a workday, the sabbath was no better than another day.

Gentile Christians did not observe kosher dietary laws. However, for some Gentile Christians, their conscience was bothered by meat sold in the public market, for that was meat that had been dedicated to Apollo or one of the gods that they formerly followed. For others, there was no bother because they now believed there was no such thing as idols.

"Let all be fully convinced in their own minds," said Paul. Diversity in many of these beliefs is fine. Everyone does not have to come to the same conclusion about everything. Honor your conscience, and live together in unity with charity toward one another, Paul advised. "Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.... So then, each of us will be accountable to God."

Pope Gregory gave Augustine great flexibility when dealing with the various traditions that he encountered when he arrived as "Archbishop of the English Nation." Augustine was not charged with enforcing Roman customs on the indigenous Celtic churches, but rather he was to honor whatever he could "profitably learn from the various Churches." People are more important than things.

Later in Romans we will see Paul urge those whom he calls the "strong" to be especially flexible with those whom he calls the "weak." He urges those who have a more mature freedom in the faith -- those whose consciences are not bothered by kosher laws or scruples about meat from the public markets -- to be charitable toward their more scrupulous brothers and sisters. When you are eating at home among your own family, feel free to eat what you wish. But when you are eating among the scrupulous, the "weak," refrain from eating what might trouble their conscience, even though your conscience is free.

Yet elsewhere, Paul does draw some strong lines. Especially over circumcision. Jewish Christians, following their tradition and the requirements of the Hebrew scripture, were certain that circumcision was a required sign and practice for those who would be acknowledged as God's people. They pointed to the testimony of scripture and tradition, and demanded that uncircumcised Gentiles be circumcised in order to be incorporated into the community of the church. Paul was vehement in his opposition. "No!," he said. Life in Christ was liberation from such legalistic traditions. Jewish Christians could not require circumcision from their Gentile brothers and sisters, regardless of their convictions, their traditions, scriptures or beliefs. For Gentiles to do so would nullify the glorious freedom that Christ has gained for us through the cross.

Paul did not say that Jewish Christians should refrain from circumcising in their own families, nor did he say that they should remove the signs of circumcision, as some Hellenized Jews did. But he also did not say that the Gentiles should be "flexible" with regard to the scruples of their Jewish Christian neighbors a be circumcised themselves for the sake of the scruples and conscience of their brothers and sisters.

I think these discussions and controversies are helpful guides for the present church and our own Archbishop of Canterbury. We are in a discussion in the Anglican Communion over the scruples of those whose consciences are troubled by the grace and fruitfulness that others have found in the faithful committed relationships of their gay brothers and sisters. "Let all be fully convinced in their own minds," seems like good counsel from St. Paul.

Those of us who recognize God's blessing in gay relationships may believe that heterosexual marriage is "no better than" the lifelong commitments of those of homosexual orientation, while other parts of the church may not. Let those who observe their commitments, observe them in honor of the Lord. Let those who are strong, whose scruples are not troubled by heterosexism, be charitable toward those whose consciences are troubled by the freedom Christ gives us. We need not require an acknowledgment that violates their consciences.

But, there is a line, as Paul insisted in the controversy about circumcision. Those who have scruples about their tradition of heterosexual-only relationships may not require "circumcision" of their gay brothers and sisters. They must not force their gay brothers and sisters to be circumcised "like them" in order to be welcome in the church's fellowship. Heterosexually oriented Christians cannot demand of homosexually oriented Christians to be either celibate or married unnaturally to someone of the opposite sex in order to be part of the Christian fellowship. To do so would nullify the glorious freedom that Christ has gained for us through the cross. To do so would ignore the fruits of the Spirit that we recognize in the committed, loving relationships of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things." (Galatians 5:22-23)

Thank God for Bishop Christopher

H/T to Episcopal Cafe.

Going through the motions

Fulcrum has produced the expected mini-screed.

Fulcrum Response to Consents being given to the
Consecration of Mary Glasspool

This is a clear rejection of the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates' Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.

We believe that it is vitally important for the Primates' Meeting planned for January 2011 to go ahead, and that for this to happen the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church should not be invited to attend. Actions have consequences.

While we are at, I think that the Primates meeting should proceed without the Archbishop of Canterbury for allowing same-sex clergy couples in the first place let alone to allowing them to get equal pension rights or for allowing the House of Lords to let non-conformist churches bless civil unions. Clearly, The Church of England (and apparently England itself) has a problem with the ABC's authority. As they say, actions have consequences.

And maybe that the Primates meeting should proceed without the Archbishop of Uganda for failing to stop the Kill-the-Gays bill in Uganda and for the weak, this-is-really-about-culture, condemnation of the "kill" part. Actions have consequences, you know.

And we should have the meeting but dis-invite the Archbishop of Nigeria not only for supporting another imprison-the-gays-for-life bill that failed, but also for insufficiently repenting from encouraging violence against Muslims. Actions have consequences.

Let's have the Primates Meeting but dis-invite every one who has made a stand or choice of anyone who has made a questionable or objectionable decision. Because the Primates Meeting is not for actually meeting and discussion and working out the hard questions of humans living in Communion this side of heaven. And forget about actually doing mission. The point of these meetings is apparently a reward for good behavior.

You know, this sounds so 2000's, doesn't it?

Actually, compared to those heady days, the Fulcrum screed is really rather mild. It is really is "mini."

Come to think of it, the "official" response from Lambeth is not even posted on the internet yet. The various blog and news sources only had the little paragraph they got because they asked for it and it came via e-mail. No news conferences, no big pow-wows, no urgent essays.

The petition from the Communion Partner dudes says nothing particularly new (or clear) and just enough people signing it to fill a church van.

We have been reduced to going through the motions. Someone does something someone else doesn't like, and we barely have the energy to hit Control-P. No one wants to walk back their previous statements, but no one has any heart or energy to fight the battles, either.

Maybe the time for screeds is past? We beseech to hear us, Good Lord.

If you can't run the race, change the rules.

Just when you thought it was safe, the Anglican Wars pop up again. The usual suspects have come with a new scheme designed to force an outcome of their own liking.

The Episcopal Cafe reports:

Mouneer Anis, Primate of Egypt has resigned from the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council, and urged others to do the same.

His resignation coincides with the release of a typically verbose missive from the Anglican Communion Institute in which the four guys with a Web site urge the following:

But since there is no body currently recognized, either by the Instruments or the Churches of the Communion, as authorized to exercise the responsibilities of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion in coordinating the implementation of the Covenant, we think it is necessary and appropriate for the covenanting Churches themselves to fulfill this task initially by convening a provisional committee drawn from the Primates and ACC representatives of Churches that adopt the Covenant to coordinate the implementation of the Covenant within the Churches and dioceses wishing to participate.

...Many Episcopalians have been critical of the Covenant, but they've never advocated anything as radical as what Anis and the ACI have called for tonight.

On reading this: I wrote this comment on The Lead:

From the very beginning, the ACI and their like-minded friends have operated this way. If you cannot get what you want from the structure you are in, create a new one and drive around it.

Having failed to get their way through the General Convention, they declare that the Episcopal Church is somehow beholden to the entire Anglican Communion. They say this, rewriting history as they go, even though the first bishops of the first Lambeth Conferences specifically warned against such a notion.

Then when the Anglican Consultative Council was insufficiently punitive, they get the Primates Council to assume authority it was never granted.

They take a "report" (called Windsor) and turn it into a blue print for a re-design of the Anglican Communion with the emphasis on punishment and enforcement.

When one of their parishes or dioceses don't like the decisions of their Province, they convince other Primates from other jurisdictions to intervene calling it a rescue mission, even as those same Primates would never allow such a thing on their own turf.

They encourage the creation of an alternative province and when it becomes clear that it will not (and cannot) take over the Anglican franchise in the US, they abandon it.

And now that the Anglican Covenant, which they themselves clamored for and rammed through processes that they themselves subverted, is going to have to be vetted and approved by the very councils and synods that they have driven around, they declare the process broken and propose an entirely new structure and process more to their liking.

Every time they have reached a constitutional or legislative impasse, their solution is to create a new structure tailor-made to assure the outcome they want. Now even the distorted, biased, and bloated processes of their own design cannot get the job done. Once more they want to change the rules to get a result they can rely on.

The Covenant is a solution in search of a problem. It is a structural and political solution to a theological problem. As such, the more we try to make it work the more artificial it becomes.

The Covenant is a failure because it is a fake solution to a real problem. It claims to be about unity and common life, when it is all about (despite the protestations of Archbishop Williams on YouTube) punishment and exclusion. The only outcome the ACI, Annis and the rest want is punishment and ultimate exclusion of the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada and anyone else they don't like from a purified Anglican Communion.

Even if they succeed, and these latest statements prove that they won't, the Covenant will not solve the fundemental theological challenge of the ekklesia. We Christians are called to live in unity, and we have been promised that we will share in the Oneness that Christ shares with God and with us. The problem is that we Christians have a hard time living into the unity we have already been given. Communion is not a document or covenant to be enforced, it is a grace to be accepted and discipline to be lived. To live in Communion requires risk, faith and above all humility.

What the ACI and Annis propose is sheer arrogance. They cannot get what they want so they have invented yet another false scheme to get their way. If we haven't learned from the so-called Windsor "process" and the whole flawed Covenant process, we should learn it now: no amount of fake structuralism can do what Christ has already promised...to make us one.

The burglar admires your decor

Revised: The following is what I have written to my congregation about the recent news that the Roman Catholic Church is putting in place a process to welcome to their fold unhappy and disaffected Anglicans from around the globe. Here it is:

You may have noticed the story which supplanted the “balloon boy” as this week’s “holy cow!” news event: the Vatican has announced a process to receive en masse disaffected Anglicans around the world into the Roman Catholic Church. I have received enough inquiries, questions, and news stories forwarded to me by e-mail from parishioners that I feel I need to say to all of you what I have said to some since yesterday morning.

What the Pope has done, apparently (if some press reports are to be believed) against the advice of his ecumenical advisers, has set up a process wherein whole groups of unhappy Anglicans and other long separated former Anglicans can now become Roman Catholics in such a way as to allow them to keep their prayer books and the clergy to keep their wives . A denomination which broke from the Church of England in 1991 applied to Rome for recognition and became the occasion for this new scheme.

The intent of the new rule is scoop up newly separated Episcopalians and other Anglicans around the world who are mad over the ordination of an openly gay bishop, the ordination of women and prayer book revision. Some of this unhappiness stretches back forty or fifty years!

What appears to be envisioned by Rome is an “English rite” church-within-a-church, which would have its own Anglican-style liturgy, married priests and even the possibility of their own seminaries. The idea is somewhat reminiscent of the Byzantine Rite Catholics, who worship in a manner similar to the Orthodox but who live under the Pope’s authority. There is a catch. Every Episcopalian or Anglican who availed themselves of Roman hospitality would find that only their baptisms and marriages would count: they would be confirmed anew (no big deal) and the clergy would be ordained again as if they never were (a bigger deal).

The Pope’s plan does nothing to regularize Anglican orders which were declared “null and void” in 1898 by a previous pope. The current Bishop of Rome had a chance to fix that and instead reiterated the dogmatic nature of that move. If anything, the new policy exacerbates the divisions between us.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops already has a so-called “pastoral provision” that allows unhappy Episcopal clergy to become Roman Catholic clergy, which this new policy would more or less regularize around the world. In the three decades that this “provision” has been in place, something like 30 formerly Episcopal clergy have availed themselves of it.

It is sad to hear that the Bishop of Rome did not have the courtesy to include the Archbishop of Canterbury in his consultations but not terribly surprising. This reveals another aspect that this plan does not change which revolves around the intangible question of ethos. One priest I know, a former Roman Catholic, said in response to my question “Does this change anything for you?” said essentially “Why should I give up Anglican freedom?” The Roman Catholic Church may try to create an Anglican-style ‘church within a church’ but they cannot re-create what has taken 450 years with intervening American and industrial revolutions to form.

The way we Episcopalians live into Catholic tradition, read and “inwardly digest” scripture and make our moral choices will not—and by definition cannot—be carried over to this new thing the Pope is inventing. The Episcopal Church has a unique charism of both Catholic order and democratic polity that few other Anglicans, let alone Roman Catholics, fully appreciate.

Certainly the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with us on a number of things and chief among them is our understandings of what constitutes Christian unity. The Roman Catholic Church defines Christian unity entirely on recognition of the office of Pope as authoritative and they see the entire deposit of faith emanating from there. We understand Christian unity as a present gift of the Holy Spirit, conferred by Christ and it is on us to live into what Christ has already achieved on the cross.

Often what divides us from other Christians is not what we believe, but where we see the implications of our beliefs taking us. One example is how we interpret the meaning of the outward signs of how Christian life is ordered—the community of baptized Christians, the three-fold ministry of deacon, priest and bishop, the nature of the sacraments. Both Catholics and Episcopalians understand that these point us to a greater unity of mission which is not our sole possession but Christ’s. At the same time, we see implications that our Roman Catholic counterparts do not: we welcome all baptized Christians to communion, we do not limit ordained ministry to just males, and we know that it is possible for all kinds of people, gay and straight alike, to live as a wholesome example to Christ’s people.

To note what we share is not to say there isn’t a certain sting when we read the headlines. Benedict XVI has managed all at once to intrude into our own church’s internal struggles for a very narrow strategic purpose; insult the very validity of who we are; and, at the same claim to value what we offer. The move seems designed to divide us. Some may take joy in this, but I do not. It feels something like coming home to find that the burglar has left a note on the coffee table complimenting us on our decor.

It would be a shame for this turn of events to further deepen the divide between our churches and between our two traditions. Certainly, we owe a great debt to Roman Catholicism with which we share much. The most important thing we share is our common calling is to serve as Christ’s ambassadors to a world that still suffers poverty, war, disease, starvation, and limited but misused natural resources.

My experience tells me is that the vast majority of ordinary believers will not be fazed by this. Most laity know intuitively what we clergy often forget: that God is bigger than all this and that the Holy Spirit is present every day in ways that transcend mere denominational differences.

I want to emphasize to those parishioners who have joined Trinity, Easton, from the Roman Catholic Church either through marriage or for reasons of conscience, and to those members whose partners remain Roman Catholic, that nothing has changed. Christ is still present to you in this community and in the sacraments. All baptized Christians are always welcome to Holy Communion, “commonly called the Mass,” in the Episcopal Church. The pastoral care of your parish is still here. Your parish family here at Trinity embraces you. This parish and our diocese will still do the often amazing ministries that God has called us to. We remain a church where Catholic order and tradition is uniquely mixed with freedom of conscience, genuine hospitality, and Christian charity.

Here is the original.

This train, dont carry no jokers, this train

The big news on the Anglican blogosphere this morning is that seven bishops (yet unannounced) have gone to Lambeth Palace to consult with Archbishop Rowan Williams. We don't know why exactly or who they are, but Dan Martins says:

I have no inside knowledge of the subjects under discussion, but it doesn't require any eavesdropping equipment to figure out that they're talking about how Dr Williams' "two tier/two track" plan might actually get implemented. More specifically, it is a safe bet that each of the seven is interested in what steps a diocese might have to take to remain on Tier/Track One even as TEC per se is assigned (consigned?) to Tier/Track Two.

It appears that as long as Rowan is the Yardmaster, there are going to be two trains leaving on two tracks. All he has to do is assemble the trains.

So, the seven American Bishops are going to London to make reservations on the Anglican Express now boarding on Track One. What is the price of a ticket?

It is easy to assume that for an American Bishop who would like to board the Anglican Express, he (or she) must present a ticket showing that they are opposed to the ordination gay or lesbian people as Bishops (if at all).

Here are the affirmations of the Anaheim Statement:

We invite all bishops who share the following commitments to join us in this statement as we seek to find a place in the Church we continue to serve.

* We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury and our commitment to preserving these relationships.

* We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this church has received them (BCP 526, 538)

* We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion.

* We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.

* We reaffirm our commitment to "continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship" which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in "interpreting the Gospel" which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God.

A little while back, Mark Harris listed the signers of the statement cross referencing those who voted for C056 and D025 as well as those who are apart of the original so-called Communion Partner bishops (in red) and who are retired (italicized).

The Rt. Rev’d James Adams, Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev’d Lloyd Allen, Honduras
The Rt. Rev’d David Alvarez, Puerto Rico FOR D025
The Rt. Rev’d John Bauerschmidt, Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Peter Beckwith, Springfield
The Rt. Rev’d Frank Brookhart, Montana FOR C056 FOR D025
The Rt. Rev’d Andrew Doyle, Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Philip Duncan, Central Gulf Coast
The Rt. Rev’d Dan Edwards, Nevada
The Rt. Rev’d William Frey, Rio Grande
The Rt. Rev’d Dena Harrison, Texas, Suffragan
The Rt. Rev’d Dorsey Henderson, Upper South Carolina FOR C056 FOR D025
The Rt. Rev’d Julio Holguin, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Howe, Central Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Russell Jacobus, Fond du Lac
The Rt. Rev’d Don Johnson, West Tennessee FOR C056 FOR D025
The Rt. Rev’d Paul Lambert, Dallas Suffragan
The Rt. Rev’d Mark Lawrence, South Carolina
The Rt. Rev’d Gary Lillibridge, West Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Edward Little, Northern Indiana
The Rt. Rev’d William Love, Albany
The Rt. Rev’d Bruce MacPherson, Western Louisiana
The Rt. Rev’d Alfredo Morante, Litoral Ecuador FOR C056
The Rt. Rev’d Henry Parsley, Alabama FOR C056
The Rt. Rev’d David Reed, West Texas Suffragan
The Rt. Rev’d Sylvestre Romero, El Camino Real assisting in New Jersey FOR D025
The Rt. Rev’d Jeffrey Rowthorn, Europe
The Rt. Rev’d William Skilton, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Sloan, Alabama Suffragan FOR C056 FOR D025
The Rt. Rev’d Dabney Smith, Southwest Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Smith, North Dakota
The Rt. Rev’d James Stanton, Dallas
The Rt. Rev’d Pierre Whalon, Europe FOR C056 FOR D025
The Rt.Rev. Don Wimberly, Texas retired

The Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, Rhode Island is a member of the Communion Partner bishops but apparently did not sign. She was at General Convention.

Mark's post on 7/21/09 is here, which focuses on the Communion Partner Bishops in his analysis.

Nine of the signers of the Anaheim Statement also voted for either D025 or C056 or both. The statement says that they are in favor of continuuing the so-called moratoria and they acknowledge that gay people are part and parcel of our life in the church. Some of these accept that they will not be excluded from the call process, even for Bishops. If dissent to either one of those resolutions is the price to board the Anglican Express, then the voting pattern of a little over one-fourth of the signers is a little puzzling.

It appears that one-fourth of the signers believe that they can remain in full communion and also have some sort of movement, study action or generous pastoral response to ordained, partnered GLBT folks. Is there a car on the Express for these folks?

So maybe the price of admission on the Anglican Express is not really sexuality? I think that the price of admission is direct communion with Archbishop of Canterbury. This would be a shift from the understanding of the Anglican Communion as being a comprised of Churches in Communion with Canterbury.

Those on board the Anglican Express would be bishops (and their dioceses) that see themselves in direct Communion with Canterbury, ignoring the role and place (and governance) of their province. On the Anglican Express, the bishops (and their dioceses) who are in direct communion with the ABC and others on this train, mediated by some kind of Anglican Covenant.

Those who depart Track Two would understand that Anglicanism is comprised of a communion of autonomous churches which may vary in matters of liturgical and pastoral practice, and that the province is the local expression of Anglicanism in their geographical area. On the Local, the bishops (and their dioceses) who are in communion with the ABC and each other through less formal means such as exists now.

Let's put this on a practical level, a level that most everyday parish clergy and many everyday parishioners understand. The Romans don't allow us to receive communion because we are not in Communion with the Pope. And I don't mean the Episcopal Church, I mean you through your Bishop. In Roman Catholic-land, the bishop and the diocese of bishop leads is the direct representative of the Big Guy in Rome.

If, as Rowan says, this is your bishop's vision of what communion ought to look like (except that the Big Guy is in Canterbury not Rome) then please head to the platform for Track One.

In the Anglican world, there is a church that roughly corresponds to the country that it is in, and the church together is in Communion with Canterbury and whomever else that "local" church agrees to be in Communion with. (So, the Episcopal Church is in full communion with the ELCA and the Moravians, but not the Church of Sweden. The Church of England is in full communion with the Church of Sweden but not the ELCA or the Moravians.)

If this is your bishop's vision of what communion ought to be, then please proceed to Track Two.

Notice that the way the question is structured in Rowan's reflections after General Convention: he would like the choice to go to the individual bishops not their Primates, councils, synods nor conventions.

So the choice of which train is not yours. It's your Bishops. So first, let's imagine your Bishop has decided that you and your congregation and diocese has boarded the Anglican Express. Now imagine hearing your Bishop announce: I have decided that all of us are going to ignore, avoid and disregard the Episcopal Church, the House of Bishops and the other dioceses of the Episcopal Church. As long as you are in this diocese, you are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury through me.

There is official language in some dioceses that sound pretty close to that all ready.

Now imagine your priest standing up and saying "All baptized Christians are welcome to receive Communion as long as they are in full communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and we await the healing of the sad divisions between us."

We already have a long history of Episcopalians and other Anglicans who disagree refusing to have communion with one another. It is not much of a leap from there to this scenario.

What's ironic, is that in the US at least the nature of our Communion is allow these Bishops some latitude according to their conscience. But what about a moderate Bishop in, say, Nigeria? Do you think that Peter Akinola will allow a moderate bishop in his province to go to Track Two? I think not.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the Anglican Covenant is a solution desperately in search of a problem. I sure hope there's a bar car on the local.